KHIRUL ANUAR MOHD AMIN v. SIRIM BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PRAVIN KAUR JESSY
AWARD NO. 1712 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 20-4-1003-24]
10 NOVEMBER 2025
Abstract – A statutory corporation or company that possesses the cumulative features of pervasive Governmental ownership and control, financial interdependence with the Government, public law oversight, and functions of high public importance closely connected with Governmental responsibilities, is considered an instrumentality or agency of the Government for the purpose of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (‘IRA’). When such a body is deemed a ‘Government agency’ under s. 52(1) of the IRA, the provisions of the IRA, including s. 20(1), which relates to claims of unfair dismissal, do not apply to its employees. Consequently, the Industrial Court lacks the requisite threshold jurisdiction to entertain, inquire into, or adjudicate upon a claimant’s representation against that employer under the IRA.
ASPALELA RAMLY v. BWFW MEDIC SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ESWARY MAREE
AWARD NO. 1808 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 14-4-618-23]
25 NOVEMBER 2025
Abstract – (i) Where an employee on a fixed-term contract is given clear oral representations/promises by a majority shareholder and key decision-maker, or where the employer’s Board of Directors passes a resolution to renew the contract for a further term, the employee may be deemed to have a legitimate expectation that their contract will be renewed, even if a formal written contract or final approval is yet to be executed. The employer is bound by this expectation unless there is a valid rescission or just cause for dismissal; (ii) If a provision in a written employment contract regarding the period of employment is found to be ambiguous, the rule of contra proferentum applies, and the ambiguous term will be resolved against the party who drafted and issued the contract, ie, the employer.
